Portable Nuclear Substation fits in a truck

Status
Not open for further replies.
ramsy said:
Time to add another article to the NEC, for portable nuclear substations.

www.industrytap.com

Former SpaceX Engineers Develop a Portable Plug-And-Play Nuclear Reactor - Industry Tap

Former SpaceX Engineers Develop a Portable Plug-And-Play Nuclear Reactor - Industry Tap
www.industrytap.com
Click to expand...
The army had a small land based reactor called the SL1. It blew up in 1961, killing the three operators. It’s a fascinating story, read about it on Wikipedia. Technology is much better now, but in the 1960’s atomic energy was proposed for airplanes, digging a new Panama Canal….
 
tom baker said:
The army had a small land based reactor called the SL1. It blew up in 1961, killing the three operators. It’s a fascinating story, read about it on Wikipedia. Technology is much better now, but in the 1960’s atomic energy was proposed for airplanes, digging a new Panama Canal….
Click to expand...
I lived on a vehicle powered by a "portable" nuclear reactor. :cool:
 
Lots of fluff, no meat. From poking around it looks like they use 'pebble fuel' and Helium cooling. Oh, and they have 'provisional patents', not real issued patents yet.

No more information that I can find.

-Jon
 
zbang said:
The word "portable" is somewhat flexible :LOL:.

(We used to refer to call things "navy portable" if it had handles and two strong people could move it.)
Click to expand...
My father bought our first black and white TV in 1960 or 1961. It was an early non-console receiver. It was portable in the sense that you didn't need a crane to move it, although you might wish for one. My dad re-coined such items as "luggable".
 
gadfly56 said:
My father bought our first black and white TV in 1960 or 1961. It was an early non-console receiver. It was portable in the sense that you didn't need a crane to move it, although you might wish for one. My dad re-coined such items as "luggable".
Click to expand...
Back in the early days of personal computers, I used the word "portative" for something that had a handle but was too heavy to carry. If you could carry it, luggable worked well on the way down in weight to portable.
 
gadfly56 said:
My father bought our first black and white TV in 1960 or 1961. It was an early non-console receiver. It was portable in the sense that you didn't need a crane to move it, although you might wish for one. My dad re-coined such items as "luggable".
Click to expand...
My parents had a "portable" suitcase record player from the 1950's. It was the size of a very large piece of luggage and was quite heavy (tube powered, no transistors). It would lay flat on the floor with the bass speaker in the front which was covered by two mid-range speakers that could be folded out when the lid was opened (or could be detached and placed wider apart). The phonograph arm would snap onto its resting post for travel. It could play 33-1/3 LP's, 45 singles, and 78 rpm vinyl (and had internal storage for all the various adapters and accessories).

Oh, how times have changed!

ETA: By God, I found it: http://recordplayerphonograph.com/2...tablesuitcase-record-player-gold-color-j0372/
Yes, it was gold. :p
 
Last edited:
I would hope that the portable reactor is one of thedesigns that are inherently safe from runaway and meltdown even in the face of operator error.
The kind where loss of coolant shuts down the nuclear reaction immediately.
Depending on the generator side, you would likely still be subject to pressure events1 based on operator error.

1: Deliberate non-inflamatory wording instead of explosion. Along the same lines as lithuim battery manufacturers talking about "spontaneous rapid diassembly"
 
GoldDigger said:
I would hope that the portable reactor is one of thedesigns that are inherently safe from runaway and meltdown even in the face of operator error.
The kind where loss of coolant shuts down the nuclear reaction immediately.
Depending on the generator side, you would likely still be subject to pressure events1 based on operator error.

1: Deliberate non-inflamatory wording instead of explosion. Along the same lines as lithuim battery manufacturers talking about "spontaneous rapid diassembly"
Click to expand...
yeah , I got in trouble in my teens for what I call "home made fireworks". There are other worse sounding words.....
 
The Nunnery Wood Processor was marketed as "portable" because it fit on a 40-foot semitrailer and could be hauled anywhere in North America without an oversize or overweight permit.

"Designed to be highly portable" ... I wonder if that means it's also highly hijackable? There might be a regulatory agency or two to convince that mobile nuclear reactors are a good idea.

Cooled by helium, designed for remote and disaster areas? I wonder what their plan for managing helium leaks is.

Water may have its drawbacks, but one of the nice things about using water for both a coolant and a moderator is that when it leaks out or boils, the reduced moderation leads to reduced nuclear activity and the reactor is less likely to suffer a highly-energetic rapid disassembly.
 
I'd like to see a diagram of how this thing works. Where does the electricity come from? Seems too small to house a turbine and 1MW alternator.
 
electrofelon said:
yeah , I got in trouble in my teens for what I call "home made fireworks". There are other worse sounding words.....
Click to expand...

I used to unroll firecrackers and collect the gunpowder. Then take one of those Testors paint bottles, pierce a hole in the metal cap, then pack the bottle with the powder around a firecracker centered in the bottle. Screw the cap on with the firecracker’s fuse sticking through the hole.

My dad wasn’t impressed!
 
retirede said:
I used to unroll firecrackers and collect the gunpowder. Then take one of those Testors paint bottles, pierce a hole in the metal cap, then pack the bottle with the powder around a firecracker centered in the bottle. Screw the cap on with the firecracker’s fuse sticking through the hole.

My dad wasn’t impressed!
Click to expand...
Co2 cartridges were my favorite!
 
tom baker said:
...The SL1 ... blew up in 1961, killing the three operators ...
atomic energy was proposed for ... digging a new Panama Canal
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, they had to be interred in a hot-waste repository for a while before it was safe to put his remains in a cemetery. And one of them had to be removed from the ceiling, where he had been pinned by control rods that had been energetically expelled from the reactor.

Atomic bombs were proposed for large earthworks projects such as canals and harbors.
www.atlasobscura.com

Actual 1950s Proposal: Nuke Alaska

In 1958, the government wanted to nuke Alaska. Called Project Chariot and proposed by physicist Edward Teller, the intent was to use six hydrogen bombs to...
www.atlasobscura.com www.atlasobscura.com

Todd0x1 said:
I'd like to see a diagram of how this thing works. Where does the electricity come from? Seems too small to house a turbine and 1MW alternator.
Click to expand...

If it fits in a shipping container, it's less than eight feet wide. If the round-ish reactor itself fits in an 8x8-foot footprint, there's a 12x8-foot space for the turbine, generator and condenser. (or maybe a 32x8-foot space ... they didn't specify which standard container it fits in.
(that's one of the nice thing about standards ... there are so many different ones to choose from)
 
Last edited:
GoldDigger said:
Back in the early days of personal computers, I used the word "portative" for something that had a handle but was too heavy to carry. If you could carry it, luggable worked well on the way down in weight to portable.
Click to expand...
I think the early Osbourne's were the perfect example.
 
retirede said:
I used to unroll firecrackers and collect the gunpowder. Then take one of those Testors paint bottles, pierce a hole in the metal cap, then pack the bottle with the powder around a firecracker centered in the bottle. Screw the cap on with the firecracker’s fuse sticking through the hole.

My dad wasn’t impressed!
Click to expand...
I imagine your backside, however, was. Multiple times. At least, that would have been my fate, without question.
 
ramsy said:
...more info...
Click to expand...

Thanks for finding that link.

Right now I think that this particular company is mostly selling attitude. 'Small Modular Reactors' have been around for even longer than 2014. This company is not coming out with a 'new' technology in the sense of something game changing that they invented...but given the current glacial pace of nuclear technology development perhaps we should call what they are doing 'new'.

A couple of points from the article:
DB: We are innovating in an industry which is not accustomed to innovation. Materials sourcing and regulations still under development are challenges. A primary challenge we are facing is attracting enough experienced nuclear design engineers. We will revolutionize the industry
Click to expand...

They have ideas, but are having trouble hiring people with the actual nuts and bolts design experience.

The comparison to solar power is interesting. They say that solar requires batteries and imply that their unit does not. Of course the unit runs constantly day and night...but saying that a 1.2 MW plant is sufficient for 1000 homes is a bit of fluff. 1.2 MW is sufficient for 1000 homes _on average_, but not at all enough for the demand peaks.

A 1.2 MW nuclear plant would produce as much energy (very roughly) as a 4-6 MW PV array. The nuclear plant feeding 1000 homes could probably be stand alone with 4-8 MWh of energy storage, the PV system would probably require 24-50 MWh of storage.

No discussion at all of disposal of spent fuel.

IMHO the _largest_ issue with nuclear power is 'political', in the following specific ways:
convincing people to trust systems which are inherently very low risk but very bad outcome if something goes wrong (very safe by expected value but with very large expected deviation.)
convincing the people who build such systems to not cut corners (It is really hard to resist making a change that is the difference between a 1 in 10^5 risk and a 1 in 10^4 risk if it means money in one's pocket, and the more dangerous option is still very safe so likely no one will ever know)
convincing people not to intentionally misuse spent fuel (If this system is so wonderful, is it moral to keep it from your enemies?)

-Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top